Saving Seafood

Scientists Urge Congress to Support Ongoing Shark Research

July 19, 2018 — Fishermen and beachgoers alike have long viewed sharks with something less than admiration, but advances in technology have proven they are deeply valuable, scientists told lawmakers on Capitol Hill Wednesday. Yet that value could be lost if climate change and overfishing continue to threaten the predator and its habitat.

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee heard testimony from several scientists about the value of shark research during a Wednesday morning session.

Among them was Dr. Robert Hueter, of the Mote Marine Laboratory in Florida, who said he’s studied sharks for 40 years and that his most satisfying moments have come when he’s gotten to watch people shift from vilifying sharks to appreciating them.

“Now I see people on the coast watching sharks with tags swim by,” Hueter said. “They don’t want to kill them but instead, they’re rooting them on and sometimes, they even [figuratively] adopt them. They understand the shark isn’t looking to eat people but they’re doing what they have done for millions of years. We’re winning the battle [for conservation] and activism is spreading, so it’s very exciting.”

Read the full story at the Courthouse News Service

Misplaced NOAA footnote blamed for shark fin miscue

October 27, 2017 — US senator Cory Booker and others have been exaggerating the number of shark fin incidents in efforts to get legislation passed that would ban the practice, but it’s really a misplaced footnote that’s to blame, a fishing industry trade group says.

Booker, who has been suggested as a future possible presidential candidate, reported at a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, & Coast Guard, in early August, that he was “shocked to find out that, since 2010, [the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)] has investigated over 500 incidences of alleged shark fining.”

But the New Jersey Democrat is wrong, according to a press release issued by Saving Seafood on Thursday, bringing the matter to light.

“While the information NOAA provided in response to senator Booker’s staff was not entirely inaccurate, a footnote was attached to the wrong sentence, making it possible for a reader to misinterpret the over-inclusive information provided,” the group said.“So, in the past 7.5 years, with an annual average of 2.6 million pounds landed sustainably from federally managed shark fisheries, there has been on average just 3.5 incidents per year resulting in charges,” Saving Seafood said.

“Shark finning is a reprehensible activity that has been outlawed in the U.S. and is opposed by participants in the sustainable U.S. shark fishery,” said Robert Vanasse, executive director of the group. “Members of our coalition do not believe there is any need for Booker’s bill.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

Footnote Error Leads to Dramatically Inflated Claims of Illegal Shark Finning from Sen. Booker, Oceana

October 26, 2017 (Saving Seafood) — The horrific practice of shark finning has been illegal in U.S. waters since 2000, and is vehemently opposed by all U.S. shark fisheries and participants in those fisheries. The Office of Law Enforcement at NOAA Fisheries is enforcing the current finning prohibition; US fishermen are in full compliance with the law.  There are very few incidents of this terrible practice on record in the United States.

On August 1, 2017, U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) chaired a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, & Coast Guard regarding the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).  During the hearing, Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) asked Chris Oliver, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries and head of the National Marine Fisheries Service, to keep him informed on NOAA investigations of shark finning allegations. Sen. Booker introduced a bill earlier this year designed to prevent people from possessing or selling shark fins in America.

Leading up to his question, Senator Booker stated the following. “You know that shark finning was first outlawed in U.S. waters in 2000. And a loophole in that original law was closed by the Shark Conservation Act of 2009. I recently asked your office how many shark-finning investigations NOAA has opened since January 1, 2010. I was shocked to find out that since 2010, NOAA has investigated over 500 incidences of alleged shark finning. As of April, there were seven shark finning cases that were open but not yet charged.”

Sen. Booker’s statement, that NOAA advised him of over 500 instances of alleged shark finning immediately sparked incredulity in the commercial fishing industry, because in June 2016, in an article by Ally Rogers, a communications specialist for NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement (OLE), entitled OLE Working Hard To Identify, Prevent Incidents of Shark Finning, Illegal Shark Fishing, NOAA stated that during the ten year period from 2006-2016, 40% of the “nearly 80 shark-related incidents” referred to “fins that were not naturally attached to the shark carcasses.”  That works out to fewer than 32 incidents involving shark fins in a decade, or on average no more than 3.16 per year.

Saving Seafood asked NOAA how it could be that the agency told Senator Booker that they had “investigated over 500 incidences of alleged shark finning” in the past 7.5 years.

While the information NOAA provided in response to Senator Booker’s staff was not entirely inaccurate, a footnote was attached to the wrong sentence, making it possible for a reader to misinterpret the over-inclusive information provided.

In the NOAA case management system, there were 526 reports that contained the word “shark” in some form or another.  This could include a number of legal and illegal activities including inspections, boardings, a legal or illegal take of a shark, by-catch, harvesting sharks during a closed season, and unpermitted shark fishing activities, to name a few.  Any report that came into NOAA with the word “shark” in it, would have appeared as an incident in the numbers provided to Senator Booker.

In fact, of those 526 reports, only 85 were incidents that referred to “shark fins” or “shark finning”.  Of those 85 incidents, only 26 resulted in charges that could be a criminal complaint, a summary settlement, a written warning, or a Notice of Violation and Assessment (NOVA).  So, in the past 7.5 years, with an annual average of 2.6 million pounds landed sustainably from Federally managed shark fisheries, there has been on average just 3.5 incidents per year resulting in charges. And that is consistent with the earlier data.

In 2016, just ahead of the Discovery Channel’s “Shark Week,” Senator Booker, and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-California) joined with actor Morgan Freeman and the environmental group Oceana to introduce the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act (S. 793/H.R. 1456, in the current Congress).  The ban is opposed by leading shark scientists David Shiffman of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and Robert Hueter, Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida.  Delegate Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (I- Northern Mariana Islands), and Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia) are also original co-sponsors.

Oceana, the Humane Society International, Wild Aid, and COARE have used the inaccurate information in support of the shark fin ban, erroneously arguing that even “in U.S. waters, our anti-finning law does not effectively stop shark finning.”  In a recent blog post, Lora Snyder, Campaign Director at Oceana, Iris Ho, Wildlife Program Manager at Humane Society International, Peter Knights, Executive Director at WildAid and Christopher Chin, Executive Director at COARE, reference “government records cited during recent Congressional testimony” to make the claim that “more than 500 alleged shark finning incidents… have taken place in U.S. waters since January 2010.”  They go on to extrapolate from that number, stating “That is approximately five cases every month.”

In fact, over the past decade, there have been fewer than four incidents per year.

Oceana hired The McGrath Group, headed by six-term former Congressman and President of the National Republican Club Ray McGrath to lobby for the bills, spending $20,000 with the GOP firm between July 1 and Sept 31 this year.

A US ban on shark fins is a bad idea, say researchers

September 22, 2017 — Earlier this year, United States senators put forth S.793, a bill they’ve named the “Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act”. With the noble goal of protecting shark populations, which are in decline all over the globe, the document proposes a total ban on the buying or selling of shark fins in the US. Sounds like an unambiguously good thing, right? Well, the straightforward answer to a problem is not always the best one – and some shark researchers worry that this approach could do more harm than good.

In a recently published paper, shark researchers David Shiffman and Robert Hueter argue that banning trade in fins would not prevent many shark deaths at all – but it might hinder successful conservation practices, and sow confusion by misrepresenting the true threats to these animals. What they recommend instead is prioritising the continued sustainable management of shark fishing.

The finning issue

Let’s start with the broad problem: sharks are in trouble. And losing them is a threat not only for the ecosystems in which they serve important roles, but also for economies all over the globe that rely on them for food, including the United States. Worldwide, many populations are dwindling, their decline driven largely by overfishing, including hunting for meat, bycatch, as well as the lucrative fin trade, which supplies demand in some countries for a delicacy known as shark-fin soup.

This fin trade has led to a phenomenon called shark finning. As the bill describes, “Shark finning is the cruel practice in which the fins of a shark are cut off on board a fishing vessel at sea. The remainder of the animal is then thrown back into the water to drown, starve, or die a slow death.” This practice is not only cruel, but also wasteful – in contrast with conservative shark-fishing practices that make use of meat and parts from the entire body.

Shark finning has actually been banned in the US since the 1990s, but as long as the animal’s body is not discarded at sea, fishers are generally free to do what they will with the fins; indeed, these are typically harvested along with the meat. The new bill, however, presented by Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, proposes a total ban on possessing, transporting, selling or purchasing shark fins, under threat of a fine of up to $100,000 or more.

Read the full story at Earth Touch News

Shark Fin Ban Is Misguided, Would Undermine Sustainable U.S. Shark Fisheries, Say Experts

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – September 14, 2017 – A ban on shark fin sales in the United States would undermine some of the planet’s most sustainable shark fisheries while harming global shark conservation efforts, according to two prominent shark scientists.

In a paper published this month in Marine Policy, Dr. David Shiffman, a Liber Ero Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, B.C., and Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Fla., call proposed Congressional legislation banning the sale or purchase of shark fins in the United States “misguided.” Environmental group Oceana is pushing the legislation, known as the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act.

In an interview with Saving Seafood, Dr. Shiffman said the legislation was “well-intentioned” but “overly simplistic.” By withdrawing from the global shark fin market, the United States would remove incentives for its trading partners to build sustainable shark fisheries, and would eliminate an important example of sustainable shark fisheries management, he said.

“We’re a relatively small percentage of the overall trade in shark fins, so banning the trade of shark fins within the U.S. will not have that much of a direct impact on shark mortality,” Dr. Shiffman told Saving Seafood. “But we’re a really high percentage of the sustainably caught, well-managed shark fishery. So removing us from the global marketplace for fins doesn’t help save that many sharks, but it removes this sustainable fishery from the marketplace as a template that can be copied.”

According to Dr. Shiffman, U.S. shark fisheries are built on a strong mix of “scientific research infrastructure” and “management and enforcement infrastructure,” which has helped make them some of the most sustainable in the world. His coauthor, Dr. Hueter, told Saving Seafood that enacting a shark fin ban would undermine decades of progress that went into building those sustainable fisheries.

“We have done a great job working together to rebuild the fish, and at least make the fisheries sustainable and profitable,” Dr. Hueter said. “And that is why this fin ban, in our opinion, is so misguided. Because after all these decades of work to get us to a great point with a bright future, this sort of ban would just cut the legs out from underneath the fishery. It would cause waste, put people out of business who are doing things right, and reward the folks in other nations who are not doing things well.”

Much of the public remains unaware of the sustainable status of most U.S. shark fisheries, a phenomenon the authors attribute to confusion over key issues related to shark conservation. In particular, many do not understand the difference between “shark finning” – the inhumane and illegal practice of removing a shark’s fins at sea – and sustainable landings of whole sharks required by U.S. law. Finning is “just this boogeyman of shark conservation activists,” Dr. Shiffman said. “People don’t understand what shark finning means in many cases.”

“We have sounded the alarm now for 20 years or more about this thing called finning to the point where we’ve gotten people so upset about it that they no longer listen to the subtle difference between finning and fishing,” Dr. Hueter said. “And they think that all sharks that are caught by commercial fishermen are finned animals.”

Should a total fin ban be enacted, rule-following U.S. fishermen would be economically harmed, the authors write in their paper, noting that nearly a quarter of the total value of shark meat sales comes from shark fins. Forcing fishermen to throw out fins from sustainably caught sharks would be wasteful, contradicting a United Nations plan of action to create “full use” in global shark fisheries, they write.

Instead of a fin ban, Dr. Shiffman and Dr. Hueter support policies focused on sustainable shark fisheries management. Dr. Hueter recommended five ways fishery managers could pursue this goal: increase penalties for those caught finning sharks, which Florida did earlier this year; stop imports of shark products from countries that don’t practice sustainable shark fishing; incentivize the domestic industry to process shark fins within the U.S. and provide for the domestic demand; closely monitor U.S. shark populations and support strict measures for sustainability; and increase public education about the problems facing global shark populations.

“Banning is always the easiest thing,” Dr. Hueter said. “Making the fishery so it’s regulated and sustainable and smart, that’s hard. But we shouldn’t be choosing things based on what sounds good or what feels good. We should be doing things based on what works.”

There is broad support in the scientific community for sustainable shark fisheries. In a recent survey of over 100 members of scientific research societies focusing on sharks and rays, Dr. Shiffman and Dr. Neil Hammerschlag, a marine ecologist at the University of Miami, found that 90 percent preferred sustainable management to a total ban on the sale of shark products. Dr. Shiffman believes that sustainable fisheries can go hand in hand with shark conservation.

“I am glad to see that the best available data, over and over again, is showing that we can have healthy shark populations while still having sustainable, well-managed fisheries that employ fishermen and provide protein to the global marketplace,” said Dr. Shiffman, who also writes for the marine science blog Southern Fried Science and frequently comments on shark conservation issues on Twitter. “We don’t need to choose between the environment and jobs in this case if we do it correctly.”

Federal Scientists, Fishermen Question Shark Fin Ban

July 27, 2017 — The following is an excerpt from a report, by Jim Strickland of WSB-TV in Atlanta, about a new bill, co-sponsored by Georgia Congressmen David Scott and Buddy Carter, that would outlaw the sale of all shark fins, including legally caught ones, in the United States:

The new bill, which would create the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, has stirred a fight over whether dealing in shark fins should be made illegal.

Videos of “finning,” where foreign fishing fleets cut the fins off live sharks then throw the fish back to slowly die, pepper YouTube.

“You shouldn’t do it and that’s all there is to it. Not to mention it’s cruel,” said licensed Georgia shark fisherman Charlie Phillips. As vice chair of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Phillips advises the government on seafood policy.

Finning live sharks has been outlawed in the U.S. since 2000. Here, fins must be harvested on land, after the fish is caught and killed at sea. Violators risk fines and banishment from the industry.

“I don’t let anyone do anything illegal on my boat,” said commercial shark fisherman Dave Campo.

“They’re impacting the American fisherman for what may be happening in other places, that we’ll never control,” Campo said.

It’s not just the fishermen saying so. So does the director of the nation’s official shark research lab, Dr. Bob Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota.

“They’ll have to throw the fins in the dumpsters which is wasteful and it doesn’t make any sense for the fishery,” Dr. Hueter said.

According to Dr. Hueter, a ban will wipe out responsible shark fishing here, while countries that still allow live finning will fill the void.

“By doing this we’re essentially punishing the wrong people,” Dr. Hueter told Strickland.

Read and watch the full story at WSB-TV

Shark Fin Soup Could Become Extinct Across the United States

May 23, 2017 — The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act by U.S. Rep. Ed Royce of Fullerton would extend a similar prohibition to all 50 states. In the upper house, Sen. Cory Booker’s Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act would prohibit the import, export, sale and trade of shark fins. The fishing industry is fighting the legislation, while animal rights advocates say the practice of finning, in which sharks are often maimed and left for dead, needs to stop.

Shark finning is illegal in domestic waters, but sharks are sometimes caught outside the United States and their fins imported. Advocates for the business argue that federal regulations already require all domestic fishing to be ecologically sustainable and that so few sharks fins traded in the United States — the Sustainable Shark Alliance says the country is responsible for about 3 percent of global shark fin trade — that the law is unnecessary.

“We believe in sustainable harvesting [of] every aquatic species and using the whole animal whenever possible,” says Robert Vannase, executive director of Saving Seafood, a public outreach group funded by the commercial fishing industry. “There is demand for shark fins, and we think it makes much more sense for that demand to be fulfilled by well-regulated, sustainable fishing rather than to have the U.S. check out of the market entirely.”

Industry advocates emphasize that when sharks are caught or imported, the whole fish is used. Banning shark fins would contradict this ethos of sustainable fishing, they say. “Why would you throw them in the trash,” says Greg DiDomenico, executive director of New Jersey’s Garden State Seafood Association and a vocal critic of the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act. He adds that such a ban could put some small-scale fishing concerns out of business. “This is a razor-thin margin business,” DiDomenico says. “It will remove another choice for American working fishermen.”

“It’s punishing people who are playing by the rules,” adds Shaun Gehan, an attorney for the pro-fishing-industry Sustainable Shark Alliance.

Read the full story at L.A. Weekly

Senate Commerce Committee Advances Fishing, Maritime Commerce Bills

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — May 19, 2017 — Yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee approved several bills affecting fisheries and maritime commerce, including a bill that would streamline vessel discharge rules and a bill that would ban the commercial trade of shark fins in the U.S.

The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA), approved as part of the U.S. Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2017, would replace a patchwork of federal and state rules regulating incidental vessel discharges, such as ballast water, with oversight by the Coast Guard. It would require commercial vessels to apply the best available technology to meet discharge standards set by the Coast Guard, and would carve out an exemption for commercial fishing vessels from the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) vessel discharge permits.

The approval of VIDA was a major step forward for the maritime commerce industry, which has pushed for changes to discharge regulations since 2007. The Coast Guard Reauthorization Act received bipartisan support, with Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) serving as sponsors.

Another bill, the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017, was approved by a voice vote. The legislation, which was introduced by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and is backed by the environmental group Oceana, would prohibit the commercial use of shark fins in the U.S. It is strongly opposed by commercial fishermen, as well as by many shark biologists.

While the bill was approved by a voice vote, Sen. Sullivan, who serves as chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, registered a formal “No” vote – the only one to do so. Sen. Nelson also indicated he had received feedback from many Floridians who were concerned that the bill would harm commercial fishermen in Florida. Commercial fishermen are expected to continue fighting the legislation as it moves through the Senate and House.

In addition to VIDA and the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, the Committee approved four bills, including an amendment to the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998. Introduced by Sen. Nelson, this bill aims to fight harmful algal blooms that have plagued Florida in recent years.

The Committee also approved the Reinforcing American-Made Products Act of 2017, the Maritime Administration Authorization and Enhancement Act for Fiscal Year 2018, and a bill to make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation statutes.

ENGOs Renew Push for Shark Trade Elimination Act Passage; Industry, Scientists Push Back

May 16, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, a group of scientists, students and Oceana are circling, renewing their push to pass the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, threatening sustainable U.S shark fisheries. The scientists and ENGOs also say sharks are in decline.

On the other side, the Sustainable Shark Alliance, a U.S. seafood industry trade group, opposes the legislation. It’s unnecessary, they say, won’t make a dent in the global shark trade and ultimately penalize responsible fishermen.

“Oceana presents a false choice between a sustainable domestic shark fishery and other uses, such as tourism,” Shaun Gehan, a lawyer for the Sustainable Shark Alliance, said in a statement. “University and federal studies alike show growing domestic populations.”

The practice of shark finning, using only the fins and releasing the shark, has been banned in the U.S. since 1993. Some states have passed legislation banning trade of some shark parts or some species.

“The Shark Finning Prohibition Act ended the brutal practice of finning, the removal of the sharks’ fins while discarding their bodies at sea, and the Shark Conservation Act eventually closed some of its loopholes ensuring that sharks are landed with their fins naturally attached to their bodies,” the scientists wrote in their May 9 letter to Congress. “However, the United States continues to allow the buying and selling of fins. Five of the 11 countries that export shark fins to the U.S. do not prohibit shark finning. Therefore, while the U.S. bans shark finning in its own waters, it indirectly promotes this practice elsewhere and perpetuates the global trade in shark fins.”

Alliance members and other scientists counter that the Shark Trade Elimination Act will, by removing sustainably sourced shark parts, result in the increase of illegal trade of shark fins.

“Oceana and their partners are grossly misinformed and are misinforming the public,” said Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association. “The U.S. shark fishery is the most sustainably run shark fishery in the world. Oceana should be promoting the responsible practices of the fishery instead of working to dismantle it.”

Dr. David Shiffman, a renowned shark conservation biologist, also is against the proposed legislation and wrote about it on the marine science and conservation blog Southern Fried Science.

“Shark fin trade bans do not allow for a sustainable supply of shark fins to enter the marketplace, punishing American fishermen who are doing it right,” Shiffman wrote. “Sustainable trade is incompatible with a total ban on trade, at least in the same place and time. The United States has some of the most sustainable managed shark fisheries on Earth. When these fisheries provide fins to the marketplace, it shows that fins can absolutely come from a well-managed shark fishery.”

Moreover, using the sustainably managed U.S. shark fisheries as examples would be better in the long run when the U.S. is negotiating with other countries, Shiffman said.

“This can be an important example for international fisheries negotiations and associated advocacy (e.g., ‘the United States manages their shark fisheries well, and so can you, here’s how.’),” Shiffman wrote. “According to Dr. Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory, a nationwide ban on the shark fin trade ‘will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way.’ (And yes, sustainable shark fisheries absolutely can exist and do exist, although there are certainly many more examples of unsustainable shark fisheries.)”

While not affecting illegal international shark populations, the bill will hurt U.S. shark fishermen who play by the rules. It will force fishermen to dispose of shark fins on every shark they catch, which currently account for 50 percent of a shark’s value. Proper management can only occur when U.S. shark fisheries are allowed to collect the full value of their catch – without this revenue, shark fisheries will not be able to afford fuel costs and will cease to exist, the Alliance said in the statement.

“Our members are struck by the intolerance of the proponents of this campaign. It is clear that they are indifferent to the potential loss of income. I guess the livelihoods of fishing families are insignificant to the folks who support Oceana’s agenda,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association.

Other respected shark scientists have come out in opposition to the legislation as well, including Dr. Robert E. Hueter. Hueter is the Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota Florida, and has more than 40 years of experience in shark research.

“This bill will do nothing to effectively combat the practice of finning on the high seas and in other countries, where the real problem lies, and it will not significantly reduce mortality of the sharks killed in global fisheries every year,” Hueter wrote in a letter to Congress.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission. 

SHAUN GEHAN: Shark fin bill hurts Americans, hinders shark conservation

May 16, 2017 — After more than three decades of stringent conservation measures and sacrifices by American shark fishermen, domestic shark populations are on the rise. But just as fishermen are on the verge of being able to realize the reward for years of painful cuts and downsizing, Congress is considering a bill that will effectively end the fishery.

Laudable in intent—attacking the wasteful practice of harvesting sharks solely for fins—the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act is likely to do more harm than good, both to the sharks it seeks to protect and to American fishermen abiding by the world’s strictest rules.

Its sponsors, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. Edward Royce (R-Calif.), would mandate discarding shark fins and ban their importation or sale. Unlike ivory, however, the U.S. is a very minor market for fins.  All fins produced domestically are exported, mostly to China.

Notably, and with industry support, shark finning has been illegal in the U.S. since 1993.  Over time, that ban has been expanded and measures to ensure effective enforcement have been created.  Those include stiff penalties, at-sea and dockside enforcement, and a requirement to land sharks with fins attached. Combined with scientifically determined catch limits, this has led to a rebound in shark populations that has been recognized by federal managers, independent shark experts, and academic research institutions.

The bill will, as a practical matter, end domestic commercial shark fishing because, on average, fins account for half the value of the landed catch.  Absent that income, fishermen would lose money catching and landing these fish. The ban also runs counter to the main principle behind this nation’s fisheries law: to maximize the economic return from sustainable use of our marine resources.

Read the full opinion piece at The Hill